The Sun. — London, England, 1838-02-10 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, FRB. 9. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at Five o'clock. LOWER CANADA GOVERNMENT BILL. Sir GEORGE GREY, and others, brought up the Bill for the Government of Lower Canada, with their Lordships amendments, agreed to by the House of Commons. SODOR AND MAN. Lord KENYON presented petitions from three parishes against the Bill for the Consolidation of the Bishoprics of Sodor and Man and Carlisle, in the prayer of which he en tirely agreed. EDUCATION IN IRELAND. The Bishop of EXETER wished to know from the Noble Marquis (Lansdowne) whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Ministers to propose a revival of the Committee into the new plan of education in Ireland ? Secondly, if it was not, whether they meant to propose any resolution upon the report made by the Commissioners ? The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said it was not the inten tion of her Majesty's Ministers to propose the revival of the Committee of last year. He was far from stating that some further information might not be elicited from such a pro ceeding, but looking at the extent to which that inquiry had gone, the great bulk of evidence which had been collected, and the means thereby furnished to the Commissioners to enable them to offer useful suggestions, it was not intended to revive the Committee. In reference to the second question he was not prepared at present to say that any such proposi tion was intended to be proposed. Should any such intention herafter be entertained, ample notice thereof would be given to both Houses of Parliament. The Bishop of EXETER then said he had another ques tion to put to the Noble Marquis, which was not connected with the two former; and it was (as we collected) whether the recommendations contained in the 13th Schedule to the 4th Report of the Ecclsiastical Commissioners was about to be carried into effect. The Marquis of L ANSDOWNE said that the Report had not yet come under the special notice of her Majesty's Go vernment, but for his own part he felt bound to say, he most fully and entirely concurred in, and subscribed to, all the Suggestions contained in that Report, and he should be ex tremely happy in assisting to forward those suggestions. THE GLASGOW COTTON-SPINNERS. Lord BROUGHAM had a petition to present, which re lated to a species of crime, respecting which very unfortunate errors prevailed both on the part of the working classes in this country and in Ireland. It was the petition of three delegates now in London, from the Cotton-spinners' Union of Glasgow. They stated that five persons, members of the Cotton-spinners' Union, were imprisoned in the Bridewell of Glasgow, in July last{; they had been since tried in Edinburgh, and afterwards brought here to the hulks, having been convicted upon charges of combining to raise their wages by intimidation, assault, the burning of factories, and assassination. After a long trial, those persons were convicted upon some counts only, the principal charges having been negatived ; but they were sentenced to transportation, which would be carried into effect, unless the mercy of the Crown were interposed. It was fit to state that the offences of which they were charged were first stated in an indictment which charged them, under ten counts, with having conspired to commit assassination, arson, and other injury to personal property, and which were carried into effect by murder and house-burning, by persons hired by the Committee of the Cotton Spinners' Union, and paid for out of the funds raised by subscription amongst the members. Graver offences could not be committed by man, or be made the subject of human accusation and inquiry. On that all were agreed, even those who were most bigoted in favour of the combination. After those men had been five months imprisoned, it at, was found necessary to depart from the indict ment altogether, and, what is called in Scotland, to desert the diet pro loco et tempers. In the second indictment. on which their incarceration was continued, all the counts of the first indictment were continued, and three others were added. Now he was convinced that the offences of which they were charged were not only dangerous to society and injurious to trade, but most emphatically mischievous to the working men themselves. But they were offences of a very different die. ; iu stcadof murder or arson they turned out to be offences, the very slightest known to the law. They were the offences of com bining, using threats, hustling, and other vexatious annoyances. What was the result ? After long and patient investigation be fore the High Court of Justiciary they were ac quitted—of what ?—and convicted of what ? They were unanimously acquitted by the whole Jury, because by the law of Scotland unanimity is not required, a majority of one being sufficient to convict on all the ten counts, that is to say, on every individual charge which had been made,and which alone formed the subject of the original indictment. Now, in th.s country— he did not know in whet light it would be regarded, in Scot land—this would have been a moat unfortunate predicament eeronhe Cio.en and a most unhappy position for the law officers of the Crown. It came to this, that they had framed an indictment in which four or five innocent men had been im prisoned for the sp ice of five months, separated from their wives and children, who were dependent on their exer tions, and this on charges which, by the unanimous ver dict of their countrymen, were declared to be unfounded. But worse than that, and a stilt more unfortunate predicament for the Crown would be, if its advisers were found to bring forward charge.; on which the men were acquitted, and all tla, time to neglect to arraign them for offences which they had committed. and of which they turned out to be guilty, and upon which, it they were included in the first indictment, there must have Leen a conviction : to impose upon them, in fact, an imprisonment of five months on a groundless accuse. tion, and to cause a still further delay of justice, and a conti nuance of imprisonment for two months, on the charges en which they were finally sentenced. So the fact being that as they were guilty of none but minor offer ces, they were not in dicted for those, but they were accused of those of which they had never been guilty. The jury, which, as he had stated to their Lordships, need not in Scotland be unanimous, retired after the investigation and a long and learned charge from the Chief Justice. He irculd demonstrate to their Lordships that when they went the majority of the jury were against the conviction of the prisoners even for :he lesser offences; for they were out three hours, and the result was that they found by a verdict only of eight to seven, the narrowest possible majo rity, that any offence, even the least of those of a less grave character, had ever been committed. Now it followed de monstratively from that circumstance that when they first sent out they were not of thet opinion ; for if they had been they would have been glad, after so tedious an inquiry, which lasted eight days, to have called the roll and retired to their different occupations. It was, he repeated, clear to demon stration, that one of the eight had been argued over, and that the verdict was thus decided. This, he thought, was a strong cesa for the interposition of the Crown ; and when he spoke of the law of England, and appealed to the practice, be was glad to do so in too presence of his Noble and Learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor), whose especial duty it was to stand by the fountain of justice and watch the subordinate distribution of the stream. Of his Noble Friend's inclination to du so he had no doubt, particulerly when be called to mind the state of the English law on the subject. In the year 1824, by the 2d and 31 of Geo. IV., all the combination laws were repealed. It no longer continued to be an offence to enter into a combination to raise wages. Whether it was wise to repeal those laws without substituting some strong enact ments had been among speculative men, the students of juris prudence as well as among practical writers, a matter of dis putation ; but this was certain, that combination amongst either masters or men was no longer an offence, and the offences of com bining were confined to cases where some criminal act was done, threatening the person or property, or for the purpose of preventing men from getting work, or making any man lose his work, or making any man join an Association, or in any way impeding or obstructing the free application of labour. It was true that there was a proviso inserted in the Act stating that threatening the person or property for the illegal purpose of inducing a man to leave employment was made more than a common assault or injury. Now what was the punishment inflicted by the 2d and 3d Geo. IV., chap. 93, on a party who was guilty of the lesser class of offences which he bad mentioned ?—Transportation ? No such thing. Transportation for seven years, the sentence pronounced on those men who were found guilty of the less grave charges? Nothing like it. Transportation for a day or year ? No. " Banished forth from Scotland," which we in England might consider a hardship, but which those who resided in Scotland were found very often voluntarily to un dergo?—(Laughter.) No. Imprisonment for a year ? No. For seven months ? No. For five months? No. For the period during which these men were suffered to be im prisoned ? Nothing of the kind. For the five months that these men were imprisoned on a bungling indictment, charging only the crime which was never committed, and omitting that of which the parties were guilty, on an in dictment before it was known whether it. could hold water, or whether this blundering piece of draftsmanship of the Crown lawyers was, with all its fringes and counts, worth the paper on which it was written ?—( Laughter.) No such thing. Not five months, but just two menthe, was the maximum punishment in the way of imprisonment which was inflicted by that Act of 2 and 3 George IV., and that to which these men would have been subjected if in England they had been accused. If this case had been tried in England, in stead of carefully avoiding any mention of the real offence in the first indictment, and mentioning only charges they were not guilty of, the indictment would have been drawn by careful prudent men of business, filling the situation of Crown lawyers, upon which if these individuals had been convicted, they would have been sentenced only to two months' imprisonment, being the selfsame punishment inflicted on these poor men in addi tion to the first five months during which they were wrong fully and through the blundering of the Crown lawyers and their agent in Scotland confined.—( Hear, hear.) Seeing then that their punishment would have been only two months if tried in England, and that they had been confined for a period of seven months, including the five and the additional two months which was afterwards added; and considering that the offence was of a slight degree, and of a constructive character, as charging these men with being members of what was called " the guard Committee he trusted that the royal ear would be approached with the kind and considerate counsel to extend the mercy of Crown to persons who had undergone three times (and more) as much punishment as they would have suffered had their case been investigated in England. Although he totally differed from those who held combination to be an offence to the extent to which it was justified by the existing law, still he thought that such practices as those of which these individuals were found guilty were mischievous to trade, destructive to the peace of the community, and, above all, mischievous to the interests of the workmen. Noise suffered more than the real victims of these conspiracies—those who furthered them under the delu sive notion that they were for their intense, and opposed to that of their intended victims, the masters. " I don't (con tinued the Noble and Learned Lord) go the length of those THE SUN, LONDON , SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1838. HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEB. 9. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four. o'clock. Mr. P. HOWARD brought in the Newcastle-on-Tyne, and Carlisle Railway Bill, which was read a first time. Mr. PRINGLE presented a petition in favour of the Edin burgh and Glasgow Railway Bill. THE' BALLOT. Captain PE C HELL had a petition to present upon the subject which was mentioned last night, and in justice to the Post-office, he was bound to state, that he had not made the complaint which was attributed to him in some of the reports. He had not said, that the petition sent to him by post had been detained by the postman, because he had not the pos tage, and he hoped this contradiction would be made public. The petition was signed by 2,000 inhabitants of Brighton, amongst whom were several Magistrates, Clergymen, and Na val and Military Officers, and other most respectableinha bitants of that town. The petition. was in favour of the Ballot, and it origi na t e d w i t h t h e C omm ittee which sat for two months to devise means by which voters might be protected ; and if he were not prevented by the new forms of the House he would move that it be read by the clerk at the table, as it came from a class of persons who had not before interested themselves in favour of that measure. Mr. BRODIE presented a petition also in favour of the Ballot from Salisbury. petition of that sort. As there seemed to be considerable doubt upon the question he trusted that the House would be favoured with the opinion of the Speaker upon it. The SPEAKER had no difficulty in stating the opi nion he entertained upon the question. When there was any doubt he was always disposed to give it in favour of the reception of the petition. If no notice had been taken of the petition, lie would not have considered it his duty to have called the attention of the House to any thing it contained. By a certain train of reasoning, the petition certainly im plied that a certain class of Members in that House had violated an oath ; but then the House ought to remember that it was a mere matter of opinion, and rested entirely upon the view or interpretation which the different parties put upon the oath. As his opinion had been called for, he would state that there was one objection to the petition which had not been mentioned. It was the rule that no petition was received which complained or took notice of any statements or proceeding which had taken place within that House. The petition before the House alluded to proceedings which had taken place within that House, and complained of the conduct of certain Members. It then became a question whether by receiving it they would not tend to open the door for complaints being made of the manner in which Members performed their duty. Mr. BARRON hoped the Hon. Member for Finsbury would withdraw his opposition to the reception of this petition. He was one of the parties against whom the vile slanders had been made, and he despised them. They etstild afford to be slandered; and he for his part was always anxious that discussion should be had on these subjects. He stood there in defence of his honesty, his opinion, and the construction of the oaths he had taken ; and he thought he was as capable of putting a construction on them as any man in or out of that House. He courted investigation, and defied the calumnies, the slanders, and falsehoods put forth on this occasion. He could say that he had acted conscien tiously, and as an honest man, in the votes he had given, and which were alluded to in the petition. He also believed that every man on his side of the House could say, with similar feelings of indignation and of honesty, that he had acted from pure principles, and that he looked with the utmost scorn and contempt on the calumnies of individuals who dared to impute to them base falsehoods, treachery to their constituents and their country, and forgetfulness of the oaths they had taken at the table of the House.—( Hear.) He flung back with indignation, in the :teeth of the petitioners the base calumnies—they were totally ground less and totally unfounded—but at the same time he hoped the House would not reject the petition, because he was at all times anxious that the petitions of all classes of her Majesty's subjects, from the highest to the lowest—from the most instructed to the most ignorant—from the most pre judiced and violent bigots to the most enlightened in the kingdom, should at all times be laid before that House. It was only by hearing opinions on all sides that the truth could be arrived at. If it came to a division, he should vote for the reception of the petition. He interpreted the oath he had taken as it had been acted on by the members of the Protestant Church—aye, and by the Dignitaries of the Church who had voted on questions relating to the Church with him, and who had adopted the same opinion of Protestant interest that he had adopted. He conscientiously believed, and was morally convinced, that in voting as he had voted on these questions, he had voted with the real friends of the Church of England, and had consulted its true interests.—( Hear.) In his (Mr. Barron's) opinion, the gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, who prided themselves on being the only friends of the Church, showed themselves by their actual con duct to be its greatest enemies. Every thing they did for the je hatreduprt i 0 00 u nf s theotfo pt herthe eo real ple purpose interest,He repeated,a°nfdse calculatedserving gt the h e shouldtCohbnc bring u o w i a i n f for et ru the athl ey re i pe tition, and he was desirous to have the fullest inquiry into every part of his conduct to which the slanders and calumnies of the petitioners applied. Mr. M.LE AN said that, on looking at the petition, ho could not help calling the attention of the House to the facts stated in it.--( Hear. ) The Hon. Member was interrupted by Mr. O'CONNELL, who said—Will the Hon. Member allow me to say that my Hon. Friend the Member for Fins bury has consented to withdraw his motion. The petition was then laid on the table. THE BALLOT. Mr. HE ATHCOTE presented aPetition from Tiverton in favour of the Ballot. POST-HORSE DUTIES. Mr. PARKERp;e;edapctition from the coachmasters of the West Riding of Yorkshire against the Post-horse Duties THE GLASGOW COTTON SPINNERS. Mr. WAK LEY presexted a petition from Edinburgh, pray ing the interference of the House for a commutation of the sentence upon the Glasgow Cotton-spinners; and also stating that the indictment upon which those men had been convicted, was not according to law. The Hon. Member presented a similar petition from Mr. Geo. Edmonds, of London, attorney-at-law. The Hon. Member presented three other petitions to the same effect—one from Dundi'e ; one from another piece in Scot. land, the name of which see did not hear; and:one from the operative cutlers of London. The Honourable Member then presented a similar petition from Manchester, signed, within a very short time. by upwards of 18,000 per sons.—( Hear.) As he would bring forward a motion on this snbject upon Tuesday next, he would not now dilate upon it, thinking that it was always better to discuss a subject- in that House on a regular motion, than upon the presentation of petitions. He would, however, remind the House that he had been prevented from presenting a petition, a short time since, because it contained an expression which it was thought might be offensive to the other House of Par linnictit—that expression being that there was a " rabble of Lords"—the petitioners not stating that the House of Lords was that " rabble," nor that the Lords in their legislative capacity had done any thing to deserve such an appellation. The Honourable Baronet the Member for Oxford (Sir Robert Inglis) had said that he (Mr. W.) paid great attention to petitions. Certainly no man in that House was more attentive to petitions, or the bu siness of the House than himself (Mr. W.) But those who were in the habit of presenting their petitions through him to that House had never imputed to the Gentlemen opposite the crime of perjury, though they used the homely language of truth, lie hoped, therefore, that in future no hypercriticism would be exercised, on the other side of the House, upon the language of petitions presented by the Liberal Members. TRADES' COMBINATIONS. Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from near 4,000 of the inhabitants of Dublin, signed by the Mayor, the Sheriffs, several Aldermen, and numbers of person.; differing from him in politics and religion, complaining of the illegal combinations of workmen in the city of Dublin, which had produced a variety of outrages and several murders. He was sorry neither of the Members for the University of Dublin ( Mr. Shaw and Dr. Lefroy) were present. He moved that the petition be printed, t o meet t h e mot i on o f his Honourable Friend (Mr. Wakley. ) Ordered to be printed. Mr. 11 UTTON said he had looked over the signatures of the petition, and they included the names of persons in every station—of every religion, profession, and political opinion. No subji et could be of more importance than that to which the petition related It had occupied the attention of the llouso many years ago, but no measures were taken to follow it up. He hoped that the prayer of the petition would be complied with by the House, and that an enquiry would be granted on a basis suited to the importance and magnitude of the subject. The petition was ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed with the votes. _ _ . Mr. NV. BUNCOMBE presented a petition from the Dean and Chapter of York, complaining of certain clauses in the Act relating to the Registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages ; also a Petition from the same body relative to the Tithe Commutation Act. The Hon. Member presented also a petition from the Stage-coach Proprietors and Post masters of the city of York, praying for a reduction of the duty on post-horses. Mr. LO\VTHER presented a petition from the city of York, complaining of the clause obliging parties to give notice in case of the registry of births. Sir R. H. INGLIS presented petitions from the towns of Reading and Newbury, in the county of Berks against the abolition of the See of Sodor and Man. Mr. DENNISON presented a petition from Rye, in favour of the Vote by Ballot; and a petition from the same place, praying the House to re-consider the Poor-law Amendment Act, and make such Amendments therein, as might appear necessary. THE DANISH CLAIMS _ . Mr. CRESSWELL presented a petition from several in dividuals, praying for compensation for the losses sustained by them, by the capture of their vessels by the Danes in 1807. The Hon. Member moved that the petition be printed with the rotes, and gave notice, that he intended on Tuesday the 23d o f February, to call th• attention of the House to the subject. Lord SANDON presented a petition from Liverpool, signed by L bw persons, praying the House to reject the Bill for rating landlords of small tenements. The Hon. Member also ISD:pmTrDaaagEyilalNiUindngGAestbTßftosT a reduction of the duty on plate and presented a petition in favour of the summary process for the presented a petition from the Marquis the Belfast Water Works Bill. N presented a petition from the City Mr. PE ASE presented a petition from the county of Dur ham, for the abolition of the negro system of apprenticeship. Mr. BUL L E R . yreseated twill petitions to the same effect. recovery: ff crown‘MDi r nlegDublin,o.ga glass. who tell the people elsewhere that they have no right to enter into combinations—that it is not right for them to do so. I utterly deny it. It is right to combine ; and I hope men will continue to enter into combinations. The law says they may do so if they please. Masters may combine to lower the price of wages, and men may combine to raise them. Men may com bine to resist the lowering of their wages. That is their inde feasible right. The Act of Parliament tells them it is no of fence, and it may be a duty. There is no doubt of that. No good cause was ever advanced by a statement displaying gross ignorance, and by the unreflecting observation, that all com bination was a crime. Such a remark was as unfounded as to say that all law was a nuisance, because some instances may he found—and, God knows, as far as criminal law was con cerned, not far off—of the existence of abuse. But, then, there is a much more grievous and far more perilous error in its consequences which other men fall into, and that is, that there is little or no offence in those unlawful acts by which the operatives suffer themselves to be disgraced and their welfare to he put in jeopardy." The Noble and Learned Lord then continued to observe that no man had a right to com bine for lowering or raising wages—for preventing men from working, or forcing men to join any association by means of threats of violence of any sort. Arguments in favour of combination were right ; they might be resorted interests, as as a duty. All peaceful means of furthering the as they were conceived to be, of the working melt against the plans of the masters ; all endearing inducements, all means short of threats, were justifiable. Combinations of all this kind the law allowed ; and to say that they were illegal or mischievous would be just as tyrannical as the in fringement which was committed on the liberty of a man when he was willing but forbidden to work for lower wages than those of his trade were willing to accept. That was the plain sense of the case, and it was undeniable law. Such was the advice which he felt bound to give to men of whom he had good reason to believe he possessed the confi dence, having acted as their advocate in the Courts of Law and in Parliament, and to assure them, that while he consented to present their petition, he could not do so without availing himself of the opportunity of pointing out the errors com mitted, not only by those who had written this petition, but by other parties, particularly in Dublin, who did not appear to be at all acquainted with the distinctions which he had pointed out. With these observations he humbly begged leave to lay the petition before their Lordships, and to move that it be read. The petition having been read at length by the clerk, Viscount MELBOURNE said that if he had been awa e that it was the Noble and Learned Lord's intention to present a petition of this nature, much less to suppose that he would enter into a long statement involving the law officers of the Crown in Scotland, he should have felt it his duty to make himself acquainted with the whole case, and the real facts con nected with it. It had been the general practice of Parlia ment, in its prudence, wisdom, and discretion—although un doubtedly it had the power of deciding on questions of the exercise of mercy, as well as of those of every other branch of the prerogative—to exercise a very great care in considering such matters, seeing that it would open a door to the greatest possible inconvenience if this prerogative were frequently .called in question, and made the subject of debate within the walls of Parliament. And he owned that he did not see anything in the present case, as it had been stated by the Noble and Learned Lord, to make it an exception to the general rule, or to induce the it Lordships to interfere by an Address to the Throne on this subject. It was admitted on all hands that these men had been convicted of an offence of a most pernicious character; and it was with very great satisfaction that he heard the con cluding observations of the Noble and Learned Lord, which took off the impression which might be produced by a former part of his speech, when he stated that the Crown had failed in proving the offence of a graver character, that was murder or conspiracy to murder, but succeeded in bringing home to the accused ;an offence of the lightest character known to the law. He conceived that any violence or intimidation used to carry into effect any regulation of such an asso ciation, was an offence of the gravest and most serious cha racter, and the more open the law had been made for allow ing men to enter into combinations, the morse necessary was it to check any attempt at violent proceedings by the most serious punishments which the law allowed. The Noble and Learned Lord had stated that the punishment which had been inflicted for the charges which were proved, was severe and excessive—far mere thsn would have been allowed by ;he law in this ceuntry ; but when the combination-laws were abolish ed, the fault which was found with the proceeding was that the penalties were too weak and too light. And he must say, that if the offence was proved to the extent charged against against these persons, the punishment which was assigned to it was not excessive, or the infliction of it unjust. The Noble and Learned Lord had said that the Law-officers bungled this case extremely. It was perfectly true that they were obliged to give up the charge of a more serious offence, and proceed in another form. There might be reasons for giving up the first indictment, which did not arise from the circumstance that the fact was not committed, but because the evidence en which they relied was not forthcoming, aed therefote the in dictment which was at first preferred was not sufficient, w're cher or not there were grounds for it. He begged leave to say that he d d not intend to give an opinion on this case, as he was riot in any respect acquainted with the facts. He gave no opinion whatever as to the course which was pursued in respect of it, hut he maintained that the facts which were brought fs.rward did not establish any misconduct on the part of the law officers of the Crown, nor prose that the punishment awarded was ex cessive. If they entered into the grounds of this application they would be obliged to examine into the conduct of the Jury, the length of time they were out, and the proportion in which they voted. There would be no end to arguments of this kind if they were once admitted; and the conduct of the Jury which had been referred to only proved the inconvenience of the law of Scotland in not requiring unanimity, and thus allowing_ questions to be raised as to how many voted on each side, and what was the character of each. The great advan tage of the verdict of a Jury wes that it should be final ; and if it appeared that it was given in accordance with the evidence, and if there was no legal mode of attacking it by recourse to the higher legal tribunals of the country, it should not be made the ground for any further proceedings of an extraordi nary nature. If they were to reflect on the length of time the Jury took to consider their verdict, and the time they were out, and to make these circumstances raise a presumption for attacking the verdict, or at least bringing forward so serious a .matter as the calling in question of the verdict of a Jury and the proceedings of a Court of Justice in Parliament, there would Ire no end to such proceedings. Giving no opi nion whatever on the course which should be adopted, and being convinced that the fullest consideration would be given to the case by those whose duty it was to enquire into it, he did not see that any peculiar claim was established for the in terposition of Parliament.—( Hear, hear.) Lord B ROUGH AM explained. The Noble Viscount had remarked on the very unusual though unprecedented course of interposing between the sentence and the execu tion by an address to the Crown. The Ncble Viscount was mistaken in supposing that he had intimated any wish to make a motion on this subject. He had never intimated a wish to do so ; but his supplication in favour of the priso ners was pointedly addressed to the Ministers of the Crown that they might listen to his statement. The Noble Viscount had stated that if he had known this petition was to have been presented he should have made it his business to see that he or some of his colleagues was informed on the sub ject of it. He had sent the petition either yesterday or the day before to the Home-office, and he had yesterday begged the attention of his Noble Friend the Secretary for the Hone Department, as it was he stated, his intention forthwith to pre sent the petition. With respect to what had been said, that there was nothing extraordinary or out of the way proved against the officers of the Crown, he must conclude that his understanding was formed of very curious materials who d - d not see that it was something more than than an every-day case to prefer ten charges, all of which failed in proof, and to omit the charge which alone could be proved. It was just as if a man were to take the indictments out of a drawer chance, and to say, .• If this cannot be proved, and is wrong, we shall go on another." The Noble Viscount had stated that the Crown might have good reason for abandoning the more serious charge. But the Crown did no such thing, but tacked the minor offence to the greater crimes. Bad as the first in dictment was, they kept it and tried to prove it. The Noble Viscount also exclaimed, " The present proceeding only shows the evils of a want of unanimity which prevailed as to verdicts in Scotland." He would not argue that question, but those who were attached to the Scotch system maintained that it was most unjustifiable to swear a man to return a verdict according to his conscience, and then if the jury could not agree, to dis miss them, or cart them, according to the old punishment, out of the county. He knew that it was often said in the law courts of this country that it was better to have one ob stinate man than eleven in your favour, for it was very likely that if he had a good stomach and a sound constitution, he would starve out the remainder.—(Laughter.) He thought it right to say thus much to mitigate the severity of the Noble Viscount's indignation against the unhappy Scotch system, and to soften the extreme admiration he had expressed of the practice in England.—(Laughter.) The Noble Viscount had argued that these prisoners would not have been tried in the same way in England as they had been in Scotland. That was exactly what he maintained, and was a conclusive answer to the Noble Viscount's conclusions. BISHOPRIC OF SODOR AND MAN BILL. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said that previous to the order of the day being moved for the second reading of this Bill, which repealed so much of an Act giving powers to agree to the recommendations of the Church Commis sioners, as related to the Isle of Man, he was desirous of saying a few words, particularly addressing himself to the Noble Earl opposite, who had brought in this Bill. He (the Archbishop of Canterbury) had received a communication from a high authority in the Isle of Man, which, as he con ceived, opened so far grounds of accommodation as to war rant him in submitting the contents of that letter to the Church Commissioners. This he should do, and he hoped it would be the means of leading to an arrangement satisfactory to all parties ; and he should therefore take the liberty to ask of the Noble Earl to postpone the motion for the second reading of this Bill until the meeting of the Commissioners took place, at which this communication would be considered. The Earl of RIPON should certainly acquiesce in the pro position of the most Rev. Prelate, and postpone the second reading of this Bill to any day which the most Rev. Prelate might find most convenient. After a few words from the Archbishop of CANTER BURY, the Order of the Day for the second reading of this Bill was discharged, and fixed for Tuesday, the ?oth instant. Viscount G 0 RT presented a petition from the owners and occupiers of land in the liberty of Limerick, complaining of the oppressive burthens of the grand jury taxation. The Marquis of LAN SD OWN E gave notice that he should more the second reading of the Presbyterians' Oaths (Ireland) Bill on Monday. Adjourned till to-morrow (this day). PO - ST HORSE DUTIES. Mr. BET HELL presented a petition from numerous post masters, innkeepers, and others, praying for the repeal of the Post-horse duty. MARINE INSURANCES.--THE BALLOT.—MUNI CIPAL REFORM. Mr. W. ROCHE presented a petition from the Chamber of Commerce, Liverpool, for the repeal of the duty on Ma rine Insurances ; also one in favour of the Ballot, and one for Municipal Reform in Ireland. In the prayer of all three petitions he most cordially concurred. RATING OF SMALL TENEMENTS BILL. Mr. GRIMSDITCH presented ; . c):titiOnfrom Maccles field, against the Rating of Small Tenements Bill. IRISH POOR-LAWS. Sir F. TRENCH presented a petition from the Lord Lieutenant (we believe) of some Irish County, the name of which we could not catch, against the Poor-law (Ireland) Bill ; stating that if it passed into a law, from 20,000 to 30,000 troops would be required to keep order in that coun try ; and praying the House to turn the Bill out, and her Majesty's Ministers after it.--(Laughter.) The Hon. Mem ber then moved that the petition be printed ; but The SPEAKER reminded him, that unless the Hon. Member had a motion on the subject to bring forward upon a near day, the petition could not be printed out of the ordinary course. JUVENILE OFFENDERS. Sir E. WILMOT gave notice, that on the 20th February he would move for leave to introduce a Bill for the Summary Conviction of Juvenile Offenders. Mr. FAZAKERLY brought up the Report of th© Poor law Committee. EXCLUSION OF ROMAN CATHOLICS FROM PARLIAMENT. Mr. PLUMPTRE presented a petition from certain Pro testants resident in London, agreed to at a late meeting at Exeter Hail, in which the petitioners stated that they regarded the admission of Roman Catholics to legislative power as con trary to Christian duty and to the principles and character of the - British Constitution.— ( Hear, hear, and laughter.) They stated, that by the Act which was passed in 1829 for the ad mission of Roman Catholics into l'arliament, it was provided that they should swear to defend the property of the country as settled by law : and, moreover, to disavow, abjure, and so lemnly disclaim any interference with the Established Church. The petitioners stated, that notwithstanding the security con veyed by this solemn oath, Roman Catholic Members had voted for the appropriation of Church property in Irelaad, and the subtraction of Church-rates in England. They had, moreover, expressed their desire that all religious establishments he abo lished, and that religion be left for support to the voluntary prin ciple. The petitioners stated that as the security provided by the Act of 1829 had been found to be inefficacious, they hoped the House would provide some other safeguard for the Esta blished Church and the Constitution, and with this view that they would exclude from Parliament persons of the Roman Catholic persuasion, and take such other steps as to them might appear necessary to effect this object. The Hon. Mem ber said, that he was free to confess, that with respect to the prayer of this petition he had been always of one opinion, and nothing that had since occurred either inside or outside that [louse could induce him to alter it, namely, that it was highly impolitic and inexpedient to admit Roman Catholics to Parlia ment , and he therefore concurred in the sentiment of the Petition. Mr. W AKL E Y said that a short time ago, in consequence of an intimation from the chair, and in consequence also of understanding that it was the sense of the House, he with drew a [(niacin shich contained an expression deemed to be offensive to the other House of Parliament. He considered it his duty on that occasion to yield to the tense of the House. He thought on all occasions it was most unfortunate when petitions contained any expressions which might be deemed derogatory to the honour of either House of Parliament ; but in the case of tho petition presented by the Honourable Member opposite, the petitioners as plainly as words could express, imputed perjury to a large body of the Members of this House.—( Hear, hear, licar.) He was sure the Hon. Gentleman himself was to o can did t o d eny th at suc h Imputation was cast upon a large body of Hon. Members ; and the petition, moreover, prayed that between six and se ven millions of our fellow-subjects should be disfranchised. It was impossible to olject to the reception of the petition on the ground of its prayer ; but when petitioners stated that a body of Gentlemen in this House—Members representing an im mense number of the British community—had been guilty in the discharge of their duty of the heinous crime of perjury, it behoved the character of the House, if it had any feeling for the reputation or honour of the country, not to receive such a petition.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. PL UMPTRE could only say, in answer to what tine Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Wakley) had stated, that the petitioners considered that the security intended to be given by the Act of 1329 had not been a sufficient security. He thought they did not mean to reflect on the character of the Members of this House—(Hear)—and conceived there Was nothing in the language or prayer of the petition to exclude it from being received by the House. Mr. HO ItSM AN understood the petitioners to avow, that the conduct of Hon. Members was not consistent with the securities given. He might have misunderstood the Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Plumptre), but he understood such to be the averment of the petitioners, and that they distinctly impugned the conduct of certain Members of this House. The Hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose that it referred to the general question, and not to the Members of the House. The Hon. Member for Finsbury thought it did impugn the conduct of Members. If that was the case, the objection taken was in full force. Mr. PLUMPTRE said the better way would be to read the petition. There could be no objection to that. The petitio❑ was then read at length by the Clerk to the H.)use. Mr. WA KL E Y observed that it was quite clear the lion. Member for Kent had properly interpreted the sentiments of the petition, A clearer imputation of perjury against any body of men had never been made in that House, and he should therefore move, as an amendment, that the petition be rejected. Colonel P. BUTLER seconded the motion. Sir R. INGLIS believed the present would be the first in stance of a petition, couched in the respectful language of that now upon the table of the House, being rejected.—( Hear, hear.) He felt satisfied that petitions of a similar import had . been frequently presented to that House, and it was not by the construction that any Hon. Member might put upon it that the petition was to be judged. It was needless for him to conceal the view which he (Sir R. Inglis) took upon the subject, but he assured the House that he was not aware of what the petition contained, or from whom it emanated, until it had been read by the clerk at the table. He would now contend that the petitioners were strictly in order. They alleged certain facts, and left it to the House to adopt its own conclusions. The petition stated that in the year 1829, a certain measure passed that House, ac companied by certain securities, and it stated that these secu rities had proved utterly inefficacious for their purpose and object. Did the Hon. Member for Finsbury deny that such securities were given ?—or would he deny, in the second place, that such securities had proved utterly inefficacious ? Had they or bad they not done anything to alienate the property of the Church? If he denied that, then he (Sir R. Inglis) could undertand him. The allegation in the petition was that they had been instrumental in alienating the Church pro perty, and the petitioners stated that so long as such con duct was adopted, the security which had been given had proved inefficient, and they prayed that the House would adopt some measure to render it effective.—( Hear.) In his opinion nothing whatever was stated in the petition that could justify the House in refusing to receive it. Mr. WALLACE said, that it appeared to him that the petition stated that as a fact which really was not so. Nobody could doubt that the allegations in the petition went directly to verify what had been stated by the Hon. Member for Fins bury. In his opinion, no language could be stronger to convey the allegation of perjury against the Roman Catholic Members than that which was used in the petition. The class of Members to which the petition adverted, instead of doing that which it was alleged, they had done all that; they could do in assisting that side of the House to improve the condition of the Church. He believed that all the statements in the petition were utterly futile and groundless. The Roman Catholic Members, together with the other gentlemen on that side of the House, had done all in their power to remove from the Church of England all the abuses which existed in it. This being his opinion, he should support the motion for the rejection of the petition. Lord E BRINGTON agreed with his Hon. Friend who had spoken last, that the allegations of the petition were utterly false and groundless in all their charges, both as applying to the Roman Catholics and the other Members on that side of the House. At the same time, he was one who had al ways been an advocate for extending the greatest possible latitude to the receipt of petitions, and nothing except a strong feeling that the statements and charges in the petition were so wholly groundless and so plain, as to leave no possible doubt as to what their interpretation was, would induce him to vote for the rejection of a petition. lie must, however, confess, that the present petition appeared to him to go nearer to charge the Catholic Members with perjury than any he had ever yet. seen ; because it stated in plain language that a certain body of th e Mem bers of that House had taken an oath to preserve to the utmost of their power the Church Establishment, and yet that in defiance of that oath they had voted for measures which had a direct tendency to cripple the Establishment. Th e y stated certain facts, and they. they put their own interpretation upon them. lie felt great doubt whether it would be to the advantage of the House to set the precedent of rejecting a IRISH POOlt. LAWS. Lord J. RUSSELL moved the Order of the Day, for the House resolving itself into a Committee on the Irish Poor-law Bill. Colonel CONOLLY wished to know if any measure for the protection of emigration from Ireland was in pr goress. - Lord JOHN RUSSELL said there was a clause in the Bill relating to emigration, but no other measure was intended to be proposed. Sir R. PEEL asked the Noble Lord when the House m ight expect the papers respecting the disputed boundaries of the prvince of Maine to be laid on the table. Lora J. RUSSELL could not tell why the documents had not yet been laid on the table. POST-OFFICE (SCOTLAND.) Mr. HUME begged to repeat a question he had asked a few nights ago, whether it was true that Mr. Primrose had been appointed Cashier and Receiver-General of the Post office in Scotland, he having never been in the Post-office before? Lord J. RUSSELL had not previously heard the question, and was not, therefore, prepared to answer it. An Hoar. MEMBER could inform the Hon. Member for Kil kenny that the appointment of Mr. Primrose had taken place. Mr. HUME then gave notice that on the first Supply Day he should call the attention of the House to the circumstance, the appointment being contrary to regulations. SCOTTISH BILLS. Mr. PRINGLE understood that Poor Law Bill would occupy the attention of the House to a late hour, and he would be glad to know whether the Learned Lord Advo cate intended to bring forward any of the Scottish Bills that night. Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not think it was probable that the Scottish Bills could be discussed that evening. GREENWICH HOSPITAL. Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSETbegged to ask whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to fill up the appointment of Governor of Greenwich Hospital, which was then vacant ? _ . Lord JOHN RUSSELL—It is the intention of her Ma jesty's Government to do so. 1 OFFENCES (IRELAND). Serjeant JACKSON begged to ask the Noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, why it was that Returns which had been moved for by him on the 20th day of December last had not yet been made. The one related to the rewards offered by the Lord Lieutenant for various offences, and the other was for an account which had been applied for and paid. Lord MORPETH was not aware of the circumstances which had occasioned the delay, but he would make the ne cessary enquiries. POOR LAWS (IRELAND.) The Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Poor Laws (Ireland (Bill) having been read, Mr. O'CONNELL rose to move as an amendment that the Bill be committed that day six months. When the Bill was before the House of Commons last year, on the 28th of April, he had addressed the House at very considerable length on the measure. If there were any value in the arguments ad duced by him they were then in opposition to the Bill, and to resist its second reading ; and he had then avowed that he had not the moral courage to take the course of direct opposition to the Bill, although he was thoroughly convinced it was not a useful Bill, and would be an injurious measure. He had crown older since then, and somewhat firmer, and he was now determined to take the sense of the House upon the committal of the Bill • as he was thoroughly convinced that it could produce n o benefit, and he was as equally convinced that it was calculated to do deep injury. He could not enter upon the present subject without congratulating himself and the House upon the manner in which the Bill was discussed in the last Session. It was discussed in the total ab sence of all party feeling, and the effect of that discussion was such, that any stranger reading the debates upon the subject, such was the unanimity amongst all the Irish Members, would not know what party any of the speakers belonged to. He hoped that the same course would be adopted on the pre sent occasion. He frankly avowed that his own opinions were adverse to the introduction of any Poor-laws for Ireland—at least, he was opposed to it as far as it would affect able-bodied persons, or those capable of working for themselves. He did not think that a provision for the able bodied poor in general could be introduced properly by law without the most de leterious effects being produced. The introduction of such a pro vision was calculated to diminish self-reliance—to diminish in dustry, and to extinguish thsamore kindly and generous feelings of nature towards parents, children, relatives, and friends. Those were the natural effects of a general Poor-law, and in his opinion it was in vain to hope by legislative means to extinguish the best feelings of human nature.—(Hoer, hear.) He was therefore opposed to a general Poor law ; but supposing that he was wrong in that opinion, then he would take up this particular Poor-law Bill, and object to it. As in making that objection he must neces sarily go into a discussion of its general clauses, he might be met by stating that those clauses might be amended in Com mittee, and that therefore he ought not to rely upon the details of the measure in objecting to its principle. His answer to that would be, that it was not his intention to rely upon any of the clauses which might be altered in Committee. He would not rely upon the emigra tion clause—he would not rely upon the clause making Ma gistrates Guardians—he would leave them eligible to be elected, but he would not appoint them to these offices. He would not rely upon the clause preventing clergymen from filling the office of Guardians, because those clauses might be altered in Committee. He would take it that those clauses would be altered, but he certainly thought that no alteration could render them of any service whatever. It was " a Bill for the more effectual provision of the desti tute in Ireland." It seemed to be an odd kind of phrase— " the more effectual relief of the destitute." It seemed to assume as a fact, that there was an existing " effectual relief, and that this was only an improvement, or perhaps it was a legislative blunder upon the comparative or positive degree. But relief of the destitute was all it purported to give—relief of the destitute alone was the scope of the Bill. In his Report, on which was founded this Bill, Mr. Nichol made this strange distinction between England and Ireland— in his Repot t he stated there was much more poverty in Ire land than it, England, and, unfortunately, he told the truth ; —but then Mr. Nichol likewise said there was much less comparative destitution in Ireland than there was in England. It was an odd kind of phrase to legislate upon, and yet a great deal of legislation was involved in that proposition—or di-tinction rather—between poverty and destitution. He was not now arguing there was not direct poverty in Ireland—he knew there was : he was not now arguing there was not great destitution in Ire land—alas, he knew too well there was and the question was, how much of this destitution (as none of the poverty was) was to be relieved by this Bill. The first thing the report suggested was that the Bill should take away one expense from the poor of Ireland—that it should relieve the poor not by the direct but by the indirect operation of the Bill, because it was suggested that at present the poor in Ireland were sup ported by the poor classes themselves. It had been stated that the value of one million sterling was given away an ntially in Ireland, and principally, if not exclusively, by the poorer classes, to those who were one degree poorer than themselves; and there would be no doubt that very considerable relief was afforded.—(Hear, hear.) And first he had to remark on the total absence of all conco mitant measures on the part of the Government. The Noble Lord contented himself in answering the Gallant Colonel op posite, with referring to the emigration clauses of that Bill. Lord J. RUSSELL—And to the measures already taken with regard to emigration. Mr. O'CONNELL was glad to be corrected. They would then have the Bill stripped of those clauses. It was a Bill purporting to afford relief to all classes of the poor and desti tute in Ireland. It relates to the halt, the blind, the idle—in fact to all. It is a Bill which upon principle refuses to recog nise any legal right to relief—all relief given under the Bill, was to be given under the direction of the Poor Law Commissioners—it was to be at the disposal of the Board of Guardians. It is a Bill which excludes all settlement—even if it gave the right to relief, it contained no settlement clause. It is a Bill which excludes any person re ceiving relief anywhere, except in the workhouse. That is the form of the Bill. hitherto they had known Poor-laws in Ireland only by name—that Bill was the first they had heard of in Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) It was founded upon the English Bill, but it went even fur. ther than it, as it positively refused all relief, except in the workhouse. The Poor-laws in England had been long in existence, and when the Bill for their amendment was before the House, it was stated that they had raised up a new species of population—a pauper population—who preferred living in idleness upon the parish funds.---( Hear, hear.) The consequences of the system were great dissatisfaction— great injury to property and person—the breaking of machi nery—the burning of farm-houses and farm-yards—all these things prevailed to a great extent in the South of England, where the system was in full operation ; thus affording an il lustration of how little a Poor-law tends to alleviate the con dition of the poor, or to effect any good. The Bill then before the House professed to confine all relief to the destitute. It was said that a Poor Law would relieve the people of Ireland from the million per annum given away in charity. He (Mr. O'Connell) had no data upon which he could ascertain whether such an amount was given away in that country in this manner. But this he could state, that no persons in Ireland complained of the relief thus given away. On the contrary, they connected it ' with religious obligations, and considered that it was pro ductive of kindly feelings in this world, and that it had a ten dency to merit another and a better world elsewhere. No body complained of this giving of alms, and it was a mockery to say, that a Poor-law would take away the necessity of this charity.—( Hear.) Upon this part of the case, he wished he could bring before the House the evi dence which had been given as to the kindly disposition of the Irish people, their anxiety to afford such other relief, the care of parents over their children, the affection of children for their parents, brothers refusing to go abroad when tempted by high American wages, because the mother was alive, or the sisters unmarried; the great sacrifices made for the gratification of these, the purest and kindest emotions of the human heart, which elevated the character of the Irish people above the population of any country on the face of the eartb.—( Hear, hear.) The truth was, that in no country in the t world was there a deficiency of benevolence to administer to the wants of the poor, if there were property enough in that coun try to enable that benevolence to effect its purposes. It was the want of property that caused destitution in Ireland, and it would be fruitless to attempt to remove that destitution by a Bill which should take money out of the pockets of those who , earned it to put into the pockets of those who did not earn it. That was the scheme introduced for forced benevolence in Ireland. It was another feature of this Bill that this taxa tion was inflicted upon the occupiers of land in Ireland. That was another ingredient in the Bill which he was now oppos ing. The occupier of land in Ireland, who held it without any profit, paid one half the taxation ; the occupier of land, paying more than it was worth (as in the case of Mr. Nicholls on Done gal), by this Bill was taxed one-half the entire rate because he was the occupier. The other half was apportioned thus. Whenever the landlord received his rent out of the land, the tenant's profit over the rent was calculated; and where could there be a more fruitful source of litigation ? The profit varied from year to year, according to the extent of the stock or the capital laid out. Here was a running litiga tion in Ireland—in a country in which hitherto at least, with rare instances, there had been one law for the rich and another for the poor. If it had been ameliorated, enough of it remained particularly in the remote parishes to make it a constant source of agitation and violence, a perpetual wrangle between the tenant and his landlord ; and if the tenant refused to admit having a larger income than he really had, how many instances were there in which the landlord might make it exceedingly dangerous to allege that h e had not an income that would mitigate: the landlord's tax ? It had been said that Poor-laws did not increase the property of the country, but merely altered its distribution. That had been taken up, and it was said though it did not affect other countries it would be beneficial to Ireland, because six sevenths of the income collected there was spent elsewhere, and it contributed nothing to the poor— give Poor-laws to Ireland, and you will reach this ineorne. This Bill prevented that income beirm comp at. It charged the tenant with a pr o p or ti on o f tbe second half equal o c his profit. If the tenant paid a fine, and laid out that amount , instead of diminishing his taxation ant increasing his profit, he increased his taxation, and diminished Ile.a landlord's taxation. A person residing in Ireland paid this tax in a: double capacity. He paid the entire as occupier, and he then pad for his profit rent equally with the absentee. Now, the abseil!" paid no thing as an occupier, and only paid a proportion on : he . o ther half in the ratio of his profit to that of the occupier. is way a direct bonus upon absenteeism, and the argument was total', annihilated when they found the absentee had a bonus, and the occupier was injured to the extent of the tax, by being an oc cupier. There was no ground, therefore, upon which the principle of the Bill could be sustained ; and, if there existed a necessity for it, let the House see what the extent of the necessity was, and what was the nature of the relief which the Bill proposed to afford. The purport of the Bill was to erect, according to Mr. Nicholl's Report, one hundred workhouses in Ireland ; and they were told that these workhouses would cost 7,000/. each. They were to provide accommo dation for aOO individuals—for the Protestant and Roman Catholic Chaplain, the Dissenting Clergyman, the surgeon, and the officers of the institution, and in short a large staff, exclusive of the regiment that was to occupy the building. It was impossible to build such a house as that, and get twelve acres of land around it, for 7,000/. They would cost 10,0001. each, and they would thus have a million of money laid out as an incumbrance upon the land ; for although there were some regulations as to instalments, be they ever so easy, yet the million remained as a perpetual burden upon the land. He (Mr. O'Connell) would say that the 80,000 it was pro posed to accommodate in these workhouses, would be no more benefited than if they had been only 8,000. Mr. Nicholls had made two journeys through Ireland ; they were of six weeks du ration each, and from the number of places he had visited he must have passed with sufficient rapidity to see a little of every place —lrish posting must have improved very much, or he would not yet have returned from his journey. The Noble Lord had, on the first report being presented, praised the judgment: and accuracy of Mr. Nicholl, but the second appeared; to be only his sailing orders, without the seal of Minis-i terial approbation being affixed to it. That repor had been preceded by three years of examination on the pail of men who were best calculated to examine into the real state, of Ireland. Persons had been delegated to visit every town; parish, and village in Ireland. At the end of that period, and after evidence had been taken in every part of the country, they brought forth an elaborate report, containing a variety of useful and important statistical information. What, he would ask, became of that report, after all the ex pense that had been incurred by it ?—(Cries of " Hear.") If the Hon. Member for Lincoln were present, it might form a fitting subject for his inquiry—the reports were thrown overboard—Mr. Nicholl scorned to look at them—he co n sidered them as so much waste paper, and they were no more the basis of the present Bill, than of any Railway Bill in England. The labour of all these gentlemen for three years was considered as really nothing. Mr. Nieholl's six weeks tour settles every thing, and he thought that the Irish Members on both sides of the House, who had not differed in discussing the details of the measure, who had laid aside their political bias and prejudices upon the common ground of charity, he thought that they had a right to complain, that instead of turning to the opinions of the Lord Archbishop of Dublin , the Roman Catholic Bishop of Dublin, Mr. Blake, and the other gentlemen by whom the report was prepared, they had had dismissed these authorities from their minds, and upon the sole ipso dixit of Mr. Nicholl the Bill had been modelled and shaped in its present form. In his first report Mr. Nicholl got at eighty thousand poor in an extraordinary way. He was pleased to say that he had made a calculation, and that the result was, that one per cent. was the amount of pauperism in Ireland. He had then annexed, by way of postscript to the Report, what was called a memorandum, in which he had stated that he bad taken the average of four of the most pauperised districts in England, and that he might conclude from that, one per cent. was the amount of pauperism in I re l an d.—( Hear.) But he omitted to state that four per cent of the population were relieved out of doors ; so that, i n st e ad o f o ne , he should have said five per cent., and instead of 80,000, 400,000. In his last report he admitted that he had made this mistake, and put it in idly. Yet this was the Solomon upon whose dela they were about to legislate. He had picked up a gentleman named Stanley in his last visit to Ireland, whose information he recommended to the Government as coming from a ma n of great local knowledge, and immense acquaintance with the statistics of Ireland. To show what reliance was to be placedon the information had from this gentleman, he won , ' read a few of his facts. He stated it as a remarkable fact that the poorer classes in Irelhnd were prrticularly averse t 0 early marriages.—( A laugh.) That while the unmarried male adults of that country were the one-fourth of the whole, in England they were the one-eighth, and in Scotland the one" sixteenth.—( A laugh.) The learned calculator had found a great mistake in Mr. Nicholl's numbers of the destitute ; an d ', summing them up to an unit, announced that the real erne? was exactly 82,806.—(Laughter.) The destitution in the ell of Dublin he calculated at 5,616, or two per cent. ; and he a c ct . ' counted for this by the fact that more paupers crovrt i _ ie into the metropolis than were to be found elsewhere. ~."„r ( Mr. O'Connell) happened to have in his possession soot'', account, calculated by the same Mr. Stanley, but on a Ver-7, different occasion, in which the pauperism of Dublin wa s es „. timated at 57,672. These were the data and documents upon which the Bill before the House was founded. They hadn d ° evidence but that of Messrs. Nicholl and Stanley to g uie them, and be would ask them could they expect to frame an efficient Bill upon such a basis? They should recollect that the Poor-law Commissioners reported 585,009 heads of fami lies destitute in Ireland throughout the greater part of the year , and, calculating them by the usual average of numbers in Irish families, it would give 2,300,000 odd. Supposing them to be even one million, how were such a mass to be provided for by the Poor-laws ? The should deal with facts, and not to be trifling with delusion. They should have other data. . 111 England there was 150 millions per year, while Ireland pro duced only 56 millions, and this in a soil of greater ifer tility. When that greater comparative fertility—so m uch greater than that of England—was taken into consideration: what did they propose to do to remedy the prevailing di .. tress ? Why, their remedy was to impose a tax upon the a gL culturists, altogether forgetting that every shilling paid in the shape of taxation was taken from the fund that would other wise be expended in wages, thus annihilating the hope of 141/ 2 future advantage to be derived from the cultivation of tu, more fertile soil. The same disparity existed between G reat Britain and Ireland on the matter of taxation. By the 'l c , ' counts ending January, 1837, Great Britain had contrib ute d` 55,850,1501. 9s. 4i -d. He was like Mr. Cobbett, ang wished to be particular to a farthing.—( A laugh.) The WI revenue in Ireland amounted only to 4,807,402/. 15. 3"; Why did he trespass on the House with these details h" t to show the difference between the countries—between G reat Britain and Ireland ? Ireland, with its coast indented by many excellent harbours, by estuaries and rivers, which ma'," coal to them as cheap as it was in a colliery town in Engla no a t was yet unable to profit by it, and possessing one and f half of the population, contributed only one-eleventh. the revenue. English law had enacted that it was a erl to teach in Ireland. The law had existed for a century, a n ei ., transportation was the penalty of the offence, and de s '; the penalty for escaping from transportation. Thera was another law prohibiting industry in Ireland, by for bidding the same encouragement to the Roman Catholic a was afforded to the Protestant labourers. And what was remedy proposed for this state of things but the introduct ion of a Poor-law ? He did not wish to say anything of a pole cal or litigious character, but he thought that before attending' a to the Poor-laws there were other subjects which deman d % attention. The Irish Municipal Bill would do more than t" Poor-laws, by placing the people, with respect to privilege: on the same footing as the people of England. He would PL . f this point to the English Members, which, if the Repor t Mr. Nicholl was correct, would save his entering into the net tails of the workhouse system. Was the Irish adult labour s ever known to beg? No ; but he came over to this countrici The Irish adult labourers flocked over here in troops, an England always supported them. The Hon. an d Learn ° ,d Member then read two extracts from the report of Mr. Ni. choll, confirmatory of his views, in the latter of w hi c h it was stated that, however poverty-stricken the tenant mi g ht be, th e landlord was always paid in full. He then wanted to kno ll ; if such were the case, what remedy would it b e to t l3 ; poverty of the country to box the people up in workhouse s The report of the Commissioners presented a pleasing b u , s melancholy contrast between the condition of the English a n d 13 Irish peasantry. But putting them into poor boxes, :"" a making them occupy prisons, was not the remedy to be appbe to the Irish people. It could not be done ; and he would ask ; any Hon. Member, whether such a people as the Irish were likely to submit to such a punishment, having committed na, crime? If it were attempted, the same scenes would occur a.: had occurr e d in England—the same system of agrarian our_ would be repeated—and they would be sowing the sea pents' teeth which would most assuredly spring up as ar m ' men.—( Hear. ) On the motion being put from the Chair, Lord J. RUSSELL thanked the Hon. and Learned (;en" tleman for the temperate tone in which he had discussed th e question then before the House. But, while he said this, "ti must also say he widely differed from the Right Hon. a t ,', o Learned Gentleman. The reasons why he differed from w o Hon. and Learned Gentleman he had last year entered i r t io • He did not think it now necessary that he should enter gni_ them so fully in detail ; but the grounds of the general po t, tion he held, it would perhaps be as well that he should rePa a at The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had very fairly stated ; b as his opposition was to compulsory relief, and although tha t " l a too large a question for him to enter into at present, he w c 7, o remind the House of the condition of this country Tl' ° the system of compulsory relief was introduced. In Dr l ll land, in Holland, and in the Canton of Berne that system " se been adopted, and no one who had travelled through t h° oz countries but would say th a t grea t er p ros p er ity existed aro ° v ' t ; them, where but for that system no such prosperity could lin en been. In England the abuses of the Poor.. laws had brut carried to a greater ext en t th an i n an y o f th ose countries , P o , he would ask th e f armers w h o paid the rates, or the. Peat themselves, wheth er th e systemof compulsory relief elid„,nbo lead to a prev e nti on o f genera l men di cancy an d robbery? l and system proposed gave encouragement to h ones t industry, heir stimulated individ ua l s t o ma k e exer ti ons f or a dvancing t our i interests. Anothe r re a son , an d a ver y p r i nc ipal one, n fa/ tg of the establishment of a Poor-lass, 4 was the improv eme . that would ne cessar il y ensue. Let them compare the 5 ferences betwe en th ose . who were employed by the occuPieord of land and those who lived on charity. The H°lL4on Learned Ge n tl eman h a d sa id th at t h ere w ere one milli of of persons in I re l an d w h o su b s i s t e d on c h ar ity, and yet heir laughed at th e id ea o f 800,0001. b e i ng applied to th e relief.—( Hear, hear.) According to his view of the er tly ration of the l aw , i t wou ld b e a t ax u p o n property' , P a _ds on the tenant s w h o wore occu pi ers and partly on the 18 '. lands. Thi s wou ld o f necess i ty affect all future en g a o ments, but by which the proprietor residing and t he P